Part VII

February 5, 2016

In the first six (6) parts of my journal, I shared the events leading up to my daughter’s dismissal from Cleveland State University’s Accelerated Nursing Program and the events following her dismissal; in particular the events surrounding the lawsuit against CSU.

What I find most ironic about this case is it all started when actions by a few well-educated people were put in play in an attempt to prevent my daughter from getting an education, simply because she complained an instructor was not providing her an education.

The following is my take of this entire incident.

I believe the day my daughter, Shana, met with Cleveland State University’s Ombudsman back in June 2011, seeking assistance in getting transferred to a different clinical classroom, her fate as a nursing student at CSU was sealed; Shana would never graduate from CSU’s Nursing Program.

It is also my belief that for six (6) months, after being told she brought embarrassment to the Program when she complained to the Ombudsman about a clinical instructor, someone with a lot of influence at CSU watched and waited for Shana to slip up to give them reason to kick her out of the Program. However, because Shana continued to do very well in the Program, it was only when an opportunity presented itself, I believe a malicious and well-calculated plan was hatched that would guarantee her dismissal.

Unfortunately that opportunity came when Shana, while preparing to perform an examination on her very last patient while a student at CSU, was calculatedly assigned to “the patient”. And as I have already shared, Shana was ultimately accused of endangering the welfare of the patient, falsifying the patient’s records and lying to her instructor and the nursing staff, given an ‘F’ in the class and kicked out of the Nursing Program.

However, when the Student Grievance Board found no evidence Shana had committed any of these serious offenses, and after the President of CSU still refused to reinstate her, I believe a fake student file, filled with negative information about Shana, was created once it was known Shana had filed a lawsuit against CSU.

I believe unscrupulous deeds were done behind closed doors in an attempt to get parts or the entire lawsuit thrown out of court, futile motions filed to run up legal fees in hopes Shana would run out of funds and drop the case, and documents created in an attempt to make Shana look like a failing student. And finally when it was looking like the lawsuit might go to trial, a warning message sent concerning Shana’s nursing license.

As I’ve mentioned before, only days before the pre-trial was to begin CSU’s legal defense requested and was granted a summary judgment. And so in the end we were greatly disappointed Shana was never allowed a day in court. The Judge ruled in favor of CSU based on the “documents” submitted by CSU, and essentially the lack of documents submitted by Shana’s lawyer.

Some may be thinking Shana’s attorney simply wasn’t qualified to represent her in this type of a case. However, the name of this attorney had been given as a referral when Shana contacted the State Bar Association looking for an attorney specializing in education law.

People have asked knowing now how this case ended, would we have done anything differently? The answer is ‘no’. Being charged with falsifying a patient’s record is quite possibly one of the worst things a nursing or medical student can be charged with. What reputable hospital/corporation would hire someone with that information noted in their files? So even when a message was relayed to Shana to drop her lawsuit against CSU or risk having her nursing license, earned while at Baldwin Wallace, taken away we felt we had no choice but to stand our ground and fight; no matter the cost, the amount of time, or alleged threats. We figured by dropping the lawsuit against CSU, the allegations that Shana falsified the patient’s records would remain in her file and would come back and haunt her in the future. Even if Shana was to lose the case, at least she could show she had fought the allegations to the very end.

As mentioned in Part I of my journal, we knew going in and suing a state protected agency, (CSU), would be an uphill battle. What we didn’t comprehend, however, was just how “protected” this state agency was. We finally realized just how protected after receiving a letter from the Ohio State Bar Association, stating they found no wrong-doing on the part of Shana’s legal defense. Unbelievable!

Stay tuned to my next journal where I share why I decided to make Shana’s story public.

You may also like

Leave a Comment